Friday, December 24, 2004

I'll be leaving shortly to visit my family for Christmas. I hope to post some over the next few days, but it won't be my usual three or four posts a day, I'm sure. I'll get back to normal blogging on Monday.

I've really enjoyed putting this blog out and I thank all of you who have visited me, whether you like my work or hate it. My sincere wish for each of you is that your Christmas is safe, fun, full of presents and the presence of those who love. And don't forget, Santa's watching, so be good for goodness sake! Happy Holidays!

Speaking of the Lind article, my post got a most curious response from Not a Fan (no kidding? I wouldn't have guessed it...). I quote in full:

People like you are a big reason that this country is on a downslide. You aren't wise. You aren't funny. You preach a political system that differs from facism only in name. You will wish you could retract your hate when the REAL American patriots return to power.

This isn't about me, though - it's time to stand up against this willful ignorance. The liberal branding of people on the right side of the political spectrum as fascist comes from the old canard that the extreme left is communism and the extreme right is fascist. As discussed eloquently in this article by Joseph Farah, the distinction is quite irrelevant, as fascism and communism end up in precisely the same place: the subordination of the individual to the greater good of the state or collective.

Anyone who takes a look around here or any conservative website with an open mind will realize at once that the modern conservative agenda is the complete opposite of fascism. It is the individual we seek to strengthen, and the state we wish to weaken. This doesn't mean we want a 'weak' America - we strongly support defense as a natural and welcome function of government, and we won't settle for anything less than the best. It's the control of the state over individual decisions that is our target.

Here are three examples from President Bush's domestic agenda:

Social Security Reform - partial privatization is a classic issue for modern conservatives in that it perfectly encapsulates our mission - it's all about who makes the choices, who has the control.

Tax cuts - as should be blindingly obvious to any but the most rabid Chomskyite, there are two reasons conservatives are for tax cuts - one, to put more money in the hands of the taxpayer where it belongs, and two, to starve the state from its natural state of agressive growth.

Health Savings Accounts with Deductible Premiums - taxpayers who take advantage of this proposal would save money on their taxes that would go directly towards reducing their out-of-pocket expenses and lowering insurance premiums. Again, more individual control means less control by the state.

It's not complicated, and its not a conspiracy. It's right there in the open. As I've said before, to equate support of Israel and a few anti-terror measures enacted in the wake of this century's Pearl Harbor with the crimes of Mussolini and Hitler is beyond contempt. Ironically, by crying wolf as often they do, the 'Progressives' are slowly devaluing the meaning of the word, and that's a shame, because true fascism is the enemy of all of us, right or left.

deacon at Power Line linked today to an article in the American Prospect by Michael Lind under the heading 'One Leftist Gets It." There is much to like in the piece - read deacon's post (and the original, of course) for several highlights. Here are some more of the good bits:

According to the authors of The Great Divide: "If our analysis is correct, demographics will slowly bring the current Republican ascendancy to an end, even in retro America." This deserves to go down in history in a collection of famous last words. The truth is that the demographic prospects for blue-state Democrats are grim.
Phillip Longman of the New America Foundation has pointed out that in terms of fertility rates the red states had a 12-point advantage over the blue states in 2004. This partly reflects the higher fertility of Latino immigrants in red states like Texas, but among white Americans fertility differences reflect a gulf between the religious and the secular...

My typical middle-class suburb included middle-class blacks and Latinos, whites and Asians, Protestants and Jews and Catholics and Hindus, Democrats and Republicans. It had a dense civil society, revolving around common institutions like the public schools, sports teams and backyard barbecues along with the sectarian communities based on churches and synagogues. I only encountered real anomie and social isolation when I lived for four years in Manhattan, where neighbours never spoke to one another in apartment buildings or stores...

Even the most appealing economic programme cannot save American liberalism if it is associated with values that most Americans reject...

Unlike fundamentalists, a majority of Americans support gay rights and civil unions for gays and lesbians. At the same time, a majority of Americans oppose redefining marriage to include gay couples - but so do a majority of Europeans, to judge from the fact that only a few European countries have redefined marriage in this way...

That's all good stuff, but even an enlightened liberal like Lind still harbors some of the same ol' blue-state prejudices he so nobly warns against. He compliments Bush for adopting a religious tone of 'Enlightenment deism' while suggesting that his invocation of Jesus as his favorite political philosopher was a mistake. On the contrary, Bush's debate answer was the most frank moment in the history of those sorry, every-word-coached-and-rehearsed affairs. No one could have anticipated that answer, and none could doubt its sincerity.

Still, it is encouraging to see that not all elements of the Left think that Bush won because we're all a bunch of fanatical idiots. Lind's article, despite its occasional missteps, is a success because he gets the fundamental point exactly right. You can't win the votes of someone you look upon with undisguised disdain.

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

I wanted to do something special for the holiday edition of Weekly Jackass. I thought of doing a Google search for somebody saying something outrageous about Christmas, but that's too easy. This week's Jackass would look at someone complaining about Christmas as a novice, in light of his impressive record of outrageous statements. He's a man of some talent, a great deal of paranoia, and a blinding hatred of anyone who loves America that rivals that of the great Chomsky. I give you - Gore Vidal.

The great thing about the Radical Left is they not only give you enough rope to hang them, but they throw the noose over the tree and tie the knot for you. Observe the twaddle that issues from our honoree's lips:

[The government] plays off [Americans'] relative innocence, or ignorance to be more precise. This is probably why geography has not really been taught since World War II -- to keep people in the dark as to where we are blowing things up. Because Enron wants to blow them up...

The Afghans had nothing to do with what happened to our country on September 11. But Saudi Arabia did. It seems like Osama is involved, but we don't really know...

We went to Afghanistan partly because the Taliban -- whom we had installed at the time of the Russian occupation -- were getting too flaky and because Unocal, the California corporation, had made a deal with the Taliban for a pipeline to get the Caspian-area oil, which is the richest oil reserve on Earth. They wanted to get that oil by pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan to Karachi and from there to ship it off to China, which would be enormously profitable. Whichever big company could cash in would make a fortune. And you'll see that all these companies go back to Bush or Cheney or to Rumsfeld or someone else on the Gas and Oil Junta, which, along with the Pentagon, governs the United States. We had planned to occupy Afghanistan in October, and Osama, or whoever it was who hit us in September, launched a pre-emptory strike. They knew we were coming. And this was a warning to throw us off guard...

I sometimes feel like I am the last defender of the republic...

The right wing are the bad guys, but they know what they want -- everybody else's money. And they know they don't like blacks and they don't like minorities. And they like to screw everyone along the way.

The entire world is horrified by what we do. He [Bush] goes into an innocent country called Afghanistan, knocks it down. One of his cabinet members knocks it down. Then he gives contracts to rebuild it to his vice president with Halliburton. Then he knocks down another country which has done nothing to us. Why don't you hit Denmark?...

Bush is about as evil as you can get, in the way of an American president...

There is no representative government. Congress doesn't represent anybody. And the Supreme Court, I must say, why some of them are not in jail, I don't know. ..

...democracy was something that the founding fathers hated. This is not generally known because it shouldn't be known, but it is...

And that's just two interviews I've excerpted! I could go on and on and on and on (in fact, we'll have to do this again soon - do I smell the first repeat Weekly Jackass?), but this post is long enough as it is. As a parting shot, here's a link to some comments Vidal made to Liz Smith about Tony Blair and George Bush being dangerous 'Jesus-Lovers'.

I can say without reservation that Vidal is truly deserving of the honor of being our fourth Weekly Jackass.

Sort of, anyway. Nicholas Kristof gets into the spirit of the season with some kind words for the Christian Right (hat tip to RealClearPolitics). He praises conservatives for leading the way on several issues that the Left should surely support, were it not for hatred of the Bushies. Included among them are Darfur, increased funding for the fight against AIDS in Africa, sex trafficking, and North Korea.

Kristoff is quite right that not every issue is a case of Left vs. Right. Surely there are some basic issues that all sides can agree on, and perhaps the way to that 'healing' that so many claim to want can be found through cooperation on, say, the genocide in Darfur. As Kristof concludes:

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

The Left, it seems, needs constant reminders that denial ain't just a river in Egypt (ouch!). A reader of this blog (see comments to this post) opines:

This whole O.F.F. 'scandal' is a joke: it's based on a list of people 'found' by an Iraqi general lying about the Ministry of Oil 2-3 weeks after Americans were 'protecting' the office, and given to a CIA-propped news organization!

Got that? A federal grand jury investigation, a UN-sponsered investigation led by former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, five congressional investigations - my, this is the broadest conspiracy since Oliver Stone's JFK theory!

Elsewhere on the, ahem, 'Progressive' front, Michael Pan at the Center for American Progress (there's that word again) lists 'Ten Things 'Progressives' (my scare quotes) Should Know About Oil-For-Food'. I highly recommend it, it's much funnier than any Ben Stiller movie. Especially hilarious is point number one - the program was badly managed. You can say that again, Michael! $21 billion down the toilet, I think that qualifies. Even Pan admits that there was massive fraud, though, and that action must be taken if the Volcker investigation shows wrongdoing. It bears repeating that Oil-For-Food is about the diversion of humanitarion aid in the BILLIONS to a tyrant who had three thousand palaces, give or take a dozen.

The 'Progressives' conveniently ignore the fact that the Bush administration is supporting Anan for now (what a sneaky conspiracy!). The proof of the ridiculous nature of the 'right-wing conspiracy' charge, though, comes from the man himself. This is Kofi Annan speaking:

Annan also rebuffed his 31-year-old son, Kojo, under investigation for having not revealing his full relationship with a firm that ran U.N. goods inspections in Iraq. The younger Annan, who had worked in West Africa for the Swiss company, Cotecna, has called the allegations "a witch hunt" and part of a broader Republican agenda. "I don't agree with that," Annan said.

CNN has an article on Bush and his sparing use of the Presidential pardon. I very stupidly asked if it was time to get rid of the pardon in an earlier post, not having known or remembered that it's in the Constitution (d'oh!). For the record, W. is up to 31 (Clinton issued over 450, including you-know-who)...

The Daily Kos isn't happy about losing to a guy with a less than 50% approval rating: best line - The Democrats need to offer an alternative agenda over the next four years. It won't be enacted, so they can shoot for the moon. The hell with good policy, make proposals that sound great. It's a good thing the 'Progressives' aren't sore losers, isn't it? (hat tip to JustOneMinute)...

...Islamic extremism is losing. The movement, in all of its variations, has been unable to garner mass support in any Muslim country. While people in many countries still despise their governments -- and that of the United States -- this has not translated into support for Osama bin Laden's ideas. It doesn't mean the end of terrorism by a long shot. Small groups of people can do great harm in today's world. But it does mean that the political engine producing this religious radicalism is not gaining steam.

As I've said before, we can't get rid of every terrorist, but we can and will win the War on Terror...

David Brooks has an excellent article in today's New York Times regarding the series of 'mistakes' Bush and Sharon have made that have us closer to peace in that region than any other moment in my lifetime. The critics of Bush and Sharon have been adamant in their conviction that we are targeting Islam and the Arab people rather than the terrorist elements among them. At every step, we have been assured that disaster is waiting in the wings.

It's doubtful that either Bush or his friends in the media will be able to keep Afghanistan out of the headlines much longer. This mess bears the
American imprimatur, and sooner or later those chickens will becoming home to roost.

Wow, Mike, when you're right, you're right! Bush couldn't keep Afghanistan out of the headlines - now anyone who isn't blinded by ideological bias knows that Afghanistan just had democratic elections, the Afghan women have been freed from the tyranny of the Taliban, and the terrorist training camps disbanded - and yes, Mike, we proudly admit that this bears the American imprimatur.

As with its other actions since 1967, Israel is again attempting to change the facts on the ground to influence the outcome of future negotiations
and continue its efforts to make life ever more miserable for the Palestinian population with the hope that they may simply give up and leave.

Michael, you're half right - of course Sharon is trying to change the tragic situation on the ground! Is the status quo what you're defending? I would suggest, though, that the Palestinian population has been made miserable by the failed leadership of the Arafat years, and Mahmoud Abbas is signalling that perhaps the time has come to forgoe violence.

I'm not naive - I know that Israel is still not secure, the Palestinians are still miserable, the drug trade and the War on Drugs are devestating Afghanistan in equal measure, and there are still way too many Iraqis and Americans dying in Iraq. My point is this: Bush and Sharon each have had the courage to say things are not acceptable as is, there must be a change, and we intend to move forward despite the inevitable harping from the Left. In this season of peace, let's say a prayer that their endeavors continue to bear fruit.

Intelliseek has a year-end study that names BoingBoing as the blog most often referred to in other blogs (this marks its first appearance here...not sure if that has any significance). The self-styled 'Directory of Wonderful Things' is apparently over 1 million monthly visitors - just a tad higher than I get here at Decision '08 (if by a tad you mean massively more many times over).

Monday, December 20, 2004

It's certainly good to see a Mark Steyn column of recent vintage. His website has had a message about a hiatus of sorts for some time that had me and others concerned. If you don't know his work, you should take some time to browse around the site. Few writers on Election '04 filled me with anticipation the way Steyn did. Here's Steyn from November 5th:

If you had to pick a picture that summed up what went wrong for Kerry, it would be the shot of [Michael] Moore and Jimmy Carter in the presidential box at the Democratic national convention. All you needed was P.Diddy, aka Puff Daddy (or vice-versa), of the Vote or Die mythical youth movement and it would have been the Democrats' equivalent of those Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin wartime summits. That picture is the Dems in a nutshell: yesterday's politicians, today's show-biz colossi.

Steyn is a former DJ and author of a book about musicals, among other things; he columns appear more places than I care to name (those interested can find out on his web site). I prefer to pay tribute with a few more choice excerpts.

On the election campaign: "I've been covering politics for 53 years, and that's just since John Kerry's convention speech. "

On the subject of Bush-hating: "In Britain and Europe, there seem to be two principal strains of Bush-loathing. First, the guys who say, if you disagree with me, you must be an idiot - as in the Mirror headline "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" Second, the guys who say, if you disagree with me, you must be a Nazi - as in Oliver James, who told The Guardian: "I was too depressed to even speak this morning. I thought of my late mother, who read Mein Kampf when it came out in the 1930s [sic] and thought, 'Why doesn't anyone see where this is leading?'"

On the Democratic field pre-nomination: "It's odd that when something big happens, as on Sunday, the Democratic candidates seem irrelevant to the story, like asking a lacrosse expert what he thinks of the Super Bowl. They get interviewed and they trot out their lame clich�s, about the need to "internationalize" Iraq, by which they mean not Tony Blair, John Howard, the Poles and Italians, but Kofi Annan, The Hague, the French, the Guinean foreign minister, all the folks who proved unwilling and unable to deal with Iraq before the liberation and who have given no indication of being likely to do any better after. "

Finally, Steyn on Oil-For-Food: "Oil-for-Fraud is everything the Left said the war was: it was all about oil - for Benon Sevan, the UN, France, Russia and the others who had every incentive to maintain Saddam in power. Every Halliburton invoice to the Pentagon is audited to the last penny, but Saddam can use Kofi Annan's office as a front for a multi-billion dollar global kickback scheme and, until it was brought to public attention by the tireless Claudia Rosett of The Wall Street Journal and a few other persistent types, the Secretary-General apparently never noticed."

Often funny, always caustic, but nearly always right on the issues: that's Mark Steyn in a nutshell.

Don't use the 'Islamophobia' excuse to avoid condemning terrorism and hatred.

Get over the use of 'imperialism' where it does not apply.

Wise up to the scandalous behavior of the UN.

Find some new heroes.

The whole thing is great, but here's my favorite excerpt:

Whether we call such notions �political correctness� or�progressivism,� the practice of privileging race, class, and gender over basic ethical
considerations has earned the moralists of the Left not merely hypocrisy, but virtual incoherence.
Democratic leaders are never going to be trusted in matters of foreign policy unless they can convince Americans that they once more believe in American exceptionalism and are the proper co-custodians of values
such as freedom and individual liberty.

Mark Warner, to put it in a nutshell, is the perfect Democratic candidate for 2008 - he's intelligent, telegenic, well-spoken, energetic and takes a common-sense approach to political issues. In short, he's everything a Democrat cannot be and gain his Party's nomination.

Clive Stafford Smith, a British human rights lawyer, is campaigning to ensure Saddam Hussein gets a fair trial, unlike his tens of thousands of victims. Smith's previous gig was to ensure that human rights were being observed at Guantanamo, courtesy of a grant from the George Soros Foundation (hat tip to little green footballs by way of Power Line). For those who don't know or don't remember, Soros is the genius who equated Abu Ghraib with 9/11. Let's see, posing and dressing a few people in a humiliating fashion versus mass murder on a gigantic scale - yep, seems about right. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for human rights, but as I've said before, the most basic human right is to live. I don't lose too much sleep over the treatment of murderers.

George Soros is angry. In common with 90 per cent of the world's population, the Man Who Broke the Bank of England has had enough of President Bush and his foreign policy. In a recent article in the Financial Times, Soros condemned the Bush administration's policies on Iraq as "fundamentally wrong" - based as they were on a "false ideology that US might gave it the right to impose its will on the world". Wow! Has one of the world's richest men - the archetypal amoral capitalist who made billions out of the Far Eastern currency crash of 1997 and who last year was fined $2m for insider trading by a court in France - seen the light in his old age? (He is 72.) Should we pop the champagne corks and toast his conversion?

After reading that, I don't know whether to hold Soros or his profiler Neil Clark in more contempt.

Where is the outrage from Soros and other human rights advocates towards the atrocities committed by our enemies? What could be more outrageous than the beheadings of hostages? Where is the outrage over the Islamic fundamentalists' treatment of women? Where is the outrage over suicide bombers killing people who were going to the supermarket, to work, or out for an evening of fun?

The United States is not perfect, but Soros knows better: there are literally dozens of countries that violate civil and human rights in the most egregious manner. The 'campaigns' for Saddam Hussein and the detainees are not about human rights; they are about publicity for a tired old rich man who spent $27 million of his own money to defeat George Bush, money that could have gone a long way towards really improving human rights in the areas that need it most.

Mark Sanford doesn't have the name recognition of a Powell, Rice, or Clinton, but the conservative governor of South Carolina has some other compensating qualities: he's relatively young, his conservative politics fit in well with the national mood at the moment, and there is a precedent for Southern governors winning nationally. A correspondent suggested I look at Sanford, and here's what I found.

Resume: South Carolina's 115th governor; former U.S. Congressman for South Carolina's 1st Congressional District; current Air Force Reservist

There's a lot to like about Sanford:

He's a fiscal conservative, undoubtably Bush's weak point (though we Republicans tend to give Bush a pass on this because of 9/11, we must recognize that we have to control spending at some point). Sanford imposed major cost-cutting upon assuming the Governor's Office; when all but one of his 106 spending cuts were vetoed by the SC legislature, he strode into the statehouse with a live pig under each arm to symbolize the pork in the budget.

Very popular with mavericks and conservatives, Sanford comes from one of the reddest of red states, but he represents the New South. With his warm personality, Sanford could be just the candidate the GOP needs in 2008 to defeat the Democratic nominee, whom if past history is correct, will be extremely unlikable.

Sanford will probably give it a shot, if the money and interest are there. How far he would take it if, say, McCain or Guiliani are running, is anybody's guess. He's young enough, smart enough, and conservative enough to be around for a while.

...to Power Line on being named Time's Blog of the Year. Some blogs you check out once in a great while, others every day - for me, Power Line is in the latter category. Pay them a visit if you haven't already...